RE: Starter comments on WCAG 2.0 draft

Let me be frank. 

The decision to rely on the <embed> element is an old one. I could just
as easily turn this conversation around and decry the W3's decision to
declare the <embed> tag invalid with looking at its most common uses.
So, let's just stay constructive. 

The bottom line is that in the case of <embed>, valid code creates
issues for people with disabilities. This is just one example. We can
talk about the use of CSS pseudoclasses in CSS1, any number of features
of CSS2, the DOM as other examples where valid code results in serious
issues for usability of content for AT users. 

To be really clear here, there is a danger of promoting standards for
their own sake. This document needs to live in the real world where
there is uneven support for standards, legacy tools to deal with and a
capability of using our common sense. 

As Giorgio sagely points up, invalid code is rarely a real obstacle.
Making this a level 1 issue will result in sites that are today
accessible and usable gaining the mantle of 'non-conformant'.
Conversely, it implies that sites that do follow standards do validate
are actually more accessible. As I mention, there are real examples
where this is not the case. The result actually harms our mutual goal of
making the web a more accessible place.

Cheers,
Bob


------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
bob regan | macromedia | 415.832.5305






-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 9:19 AM
To: rscano@iwa-italy.org; Bob Regan; giorgio@dimi.uniud.it; Phill
Jenkins
Cc: gv@trace.wisc.edu; w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: RE: Starter comments on WCAG 2.0 draft


Errata: captioning works well.

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)"<rscano@iwa-italy.org>
    Inviato: 27/07/05 18.13.41
    A: "bregan@macromedia.com"<bregan@macromedia.com>,
"giorgio@dimi.uniud.it"<giorgio@dimi.uniud.it>,
"pjenkins@us.ibm.com"<pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
    Cc: "gv@trace.wisc.edu"<gv@trace.wisc.edu>,
"w3c-wai-au@w3.org"<w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
    Oggetto: RE: Starter comments on WCAG 2.0 draft
    
    
    Hi Bob, you put a clear example: <embed> isn't inside any DTD, like
<marquee> and <blink>.
    But, due that Macromedia decided to use it instead of <object> and
<param>, and also probably for poor browser object support (IE prefer
"clsid", other "type" attribute) there was a large diffusion of invalid
elements.
    But is possible also use object without flash satay:
http://www.robertoscano.info/works/captioning/flash/
    I can see it also in here from my pocketpc (only captions don't
work... I think is a limitation of flash plugin).
    
    The problem is: no valid code means also dom parsing interpretation,
more checks for AT, so more money for develop AT. 
    So, what we want is support wrong policies of companies that use
proprietary elements and/or that are not able to create tools that
conform to level A of atag 2.0? Really?
    
    ----- Messaggio originale -----
        Da: "Bob Regan"<bregan@macromedia.com>
        Inviato: 27/07/05 17.19.38
        A: "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)"<rscano@iwa-italy.org>,
"giorgio@dimi.uniud.it"<giorgio@dimi.uniud.it>, "Phill
Jenkins"<pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
        Cc: "gv@trace.wisc.edu"<gv@trace.wisc.edu>,
"w3c-wai-au@w3.org"<w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
        Oggetto: RE: Starter comments on WCAG 2.0 draft
          
        Roberto,
        
        I don't think you are being fair to vendors or IBM. 
        
        The question before this group is to develop a set of guidelines
based
        on available technologies AND available best practice. 
        
        The long and the short of it is that valid code is not part of
best
        practice today. That is to say, simply having valid code does
not ensure
        the accessibility of a site or necessarily improve the usability
of a
        site. While we can argue it will one day have a positive impact
the
        reality today is that it does not. I would go a step further to
say that
        there are cases where relying on valid code alone can actually
detract
        from the accessibility of a site. Think about Flash and the use
of the
        <embed> element. It is not valid markup but Flash satay breaks
the
        accessibility of the ActiveX control. More generally, think
about the
        limited support of CSS in most screen readers. 
        
        The fallacy here is that invalid code results in inaccessible
sites or
        that it detracts from the usability of the site. While I would
agree
        whole heartedly that there are cases where this is true, I do
not
        believe it is uniquely true. As I mentioned, there are cases
where
        invalid code results in a more accessible page. 
        
        Interoperability and support for standards is a priority in
industry. In
        fact, I would argue IBM and Macromedia (to name just two
examples
        singled out here) are leaders in that respect. However, until we
see
        broader support, the issue is feasibility, not reluctance on the
part of
        industry. 
        
        Cheers,
        Bob
        
        
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        -
        bob regan | macromedia | 415.832.5305
        
        
        
        
        
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On
        Behalf Of Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
        Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 7:53 AM
        To: giorgio@dimi.uniud.it; Phill Jenkins
    
    

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per
recuperare la restante parte.]

Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 16:55:58 UTC